Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Üstbilişsel Yazma Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Ölçülmesi: Bir Literatür İnceleme ve Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması*

Measuring Metacognitive Writing Awareness Levels of Secondary School Students: A Literature Review and Scale Development Study

Özet

Üstbiliş, yazmanın önemli bir unsurudur. Bu unsur, öğrenenlerin yazmadaki bilişsel süreçlerle ilgili bilgi sahibi olma ve bu süreçleri kontrol edebilme yetkinliklerini içermektedir. Bu yetkinliğin düzeyine ve zaman içindeki gelişimine yönelik anlayış geliştirebilmenin ilk adımı ise üstbilişselliğin ölçülmesidir. Bu noktada çalışmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerinin yazmayla ilgili üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının belirlenmesinde kullanılabilecek “Üstbilişsel Yazma Farkındalığı Ölçeği”nin (ÜYFÖ) geliştirilmesidir. Bu kapsamda çalışma, iki aşamalı olarak yapılandırılmıştır. Birinci aşamada üstbiliş ve yazma eksenindeki birtakım kuramsal açıklamalara; ikinci bölümde ise ölçek geliştirme süreciyle ilgili tanıtıcı bilgilere yer verilmiştir. Ortaokul düzeyinde öğrenim gören 384 katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler üzerinde yapılan açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları, ÜYFÖ’nün faktör yükü .336 ile .724 arasında değişen 23 maddeden ve beş faktörden oluştuğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu faktörler “bildirime dayalı bilgi”, “yöntemsel bilgi”, “koşulsal bilgi”, “planlama” ve “izleme-değerlendirme-hata ayıklama” olarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin beş faktörlü desende açıkladığı toplam varyans %52.36’dır. Yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin sonucunda elde edilen uyum indeksleri (χ2/df =1.53, RMSEA=.037, CFI=.94, AGFI=.911 SRMR=.041) modelin verilerle uyum içinde olduğunu göstermiştir. Güvenirlik analizinde ölçeğin tamamı için Cronbach Alpha değeri .883 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin boyutlarından “bildirime dayalı bilgi” .599; “yöntemsel bilgi” .601; “koşulsal bilgi” .603; “planlama” .699 “izleme, değerlendirme ve hata ayıklama” .610 Alpha değerine sahiptir. Bu veriler ÜYFÖ’nün ortaokul öğrencilerinin yazmaya yönelik üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının belirlenmesinde geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini ortaya koymuştur.

Abstract

The concept metacognition addresses issues such as developing awareness about one’s own thinking processes, knowing managerial strategies such as organization and evaluation of self-cognitive processes, using these strategies under appropriate conditions and to reflect their learning. As of the 1970s, when theoretical foundations of metacognition began to be established, researchers (Baker and Brown, 1984; Efklides, 2011; Flavell, 1981; Jacobs and Paris, 1987; Kluwe, 1982; Paris, Cross, and Lipson, 1984; Schraw, 2001; Schraw and Dennison; 1994; Pintrich, Wolters and Baxter, 2000; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, and Afflerbach, 2006), the concept has been explained through different models and elements, and it has been regarded to have a key role in learning (Devine, 1993; Gourgey, 2001; Händel, Artelt and Weinert, 2013; Larkin, 2010; Schraw, 2001; Xu and Tang, 2007). Writing is among the fields of language skills and learning that are closely associated with metacognition. A good number of theoretical studies (Graham, 2006; Hacker et al., 2009; Harris et al., 2010; Sitko, 1998) and other related studies (Kansızoğlu, 2018; Negretti, 2012; Qin & Zang, 2019; Ruan, 2014; Teng, 2019) manifest such an association. Metacognition includes learners’ knowledge about their own cognitive processes during the writing and their competencies to control these processes. Measuring metacognition is the first step in understanding the level of this competence and its development over time. Therefore, researchers use various metacognition tools such as self-report questionnaires, coded observations, think-aloud protocols, performance ratings, interviews, eye-movement recording technology, online computer logs, and microanalytical interviews (Cleary, Callan, Malatesta and Adams, 2015; Dinsmore, Alexander, and Laughlin, 2008; Pintrich, et al., 2000; Veenman et al., 2006). These tools used in the assessment and measurement of metacognition can be categorized under two main titles, being online and offline, in terms of the time when data is collected (Craig et al., 2020; Pintrich et al., 2000; Veenman, 2005). The online measurement is carried out during learning or performing a task, while the offline measurement is done before a task or after learning ends (Craig et al., 2020). While the most common ones among online tools are think-aloud protocols and systematic observation, the most preferred offline tools are the ones based on self-report such as questionnaire and scale (Dinsmore et al., 2018; Saraç & Karakelle, 2012; Veenman, 2005). The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), developed by Schraw and Dennison, is one of the most frequently used tools based on self-report (Harrison and Vallin, 2018). From the perspective of the special areas of language teaching, it can be seen that assessment and measurement tools measuring different dimensions of metacognition have been primarily developed in the area of reading (Çöğmen and Saracaloğlu, 2010; Miholic, 1994; Mokhtari and Reichard, 2002; Öztürk, 2012; Taraban, Kerr and Rynearson, 2004). Furthermore, some assessment and measurement tools have been developed specifically for the area of writing in the last five years (Aydın, İnnalı, and Uyumaz, 2017; Farahian, 2015; Karlen, 2017; Zang & Qin, 2018). Despite various assessment and measurement tools for metacognition in the literature, no specific assessment and measurement tool is targeting secondary school students or measuring metacognitive awareness in writing in Turkish language teaching. In this scope, this study aims to develop a “Metacognitive Writing Awareness Scale” (MWAS) to be used to determine the metacognitive awareness of secondary school students towards writing. The research data were collected from 384 students between the ages of 10-14 who study at seven different secondary schools affiliated to Bartın Provincial Directorate of National Education. Within the scope of the study, a valid and reliable measurement tool was developed to determine the metacognitive awareness of secondary school students towards writing. The obtained measurement tool includes five factors, namely "self-report-based information", "methodological information", "conditional information", "planning", “monitoring-evaluation-debugging”, and 23 items in total. A five-point Likert type scale was formed in this sense. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 23, and the highest score is 115. Within the scope of exploratory factor analysis, to reveal the factor pattern of MWAS, Maximum Likelihood was selected as the factoring method and Direct Oblimin, among oblique rotation techniques, was selected as the rotation method. The findings demonstrate that MWAS has a five-factor structure with a 1% eigenvalue and 4.5% variance explaining 52.36% of the total variance. Factor loadings of 23 items in this five-factor structure vary between .336 and .724. The findings of the confirmatory factor